Phantom Goal?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MILANlucic17. Show MILANlucic17's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    benny thanks for the time and effot you have put into this... I will always wonder what the truth is we need an over head view.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tuckrules. Show tuckrules's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    I forward this thread to the NHL league offices.  The actually agreed with you... It's a tie game were going to play the last 6 second of regulation and any OT, if necessary, tomorrow night at 8:00 on Versus 2.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CarolinaClamMan. Show CarolinaClamMan's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    In Response to Re: Phantom Goal?:
    In Response to Re: Phantom Goal As for the ref incident, I retrieved these images from a clip on the Versus website. The audio has the announcer specifically mentioning how hard the ref jumped on the netting and says something like "I hope the nylon? or net was strong enough". But that part of my inquiry is secondary and I'm not saying this caused a defect in the net. It just added a another wrinkle or piece to the puzzle.
    Posted by bennyramone


    Benny, If the ref's skates cut the netting, the hole would have been low and to the other side from where you are saying the puck might have hit.  True?

    This is a fascinating idea ; thanks for bringing it up.  But where will it go or what will it prove, if there is some possibility it might be true? 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bennyramone. Show bennyramone's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    Benny, If the ref's skates cut the netting, the hole would have been low and to the other side from where you are saying the puck might have hit.  True? This is a fascinating idea ; thanks for bringing it up.  But where will it go or what will it prove, if there is some possibility it might be true? 
    Posted by CarolinaClamMan
    First, the ref's skate was just a theory. Second I'm not saying the puck went through the section of the net where the red circle is; that is just where you can see the puck behind the net. I'm suggesting that the puck went in low between Leighton and the post. The puck is just not visible behind Leighton until Frame 2. In Frame 2 the puck is probably less then four inches off the ice.
     
    I'm pretty sure it will not go anywhere. I was just hoping for a NESN technie or someone to take a look at the overhead view. That would give a definite answer pretty quickly and shut me up which I'm starting to think many people would like.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wheatskins. Show Wheatskins's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    As much as I would want it to be true: I have watched the replay again and again. Chara's shot went to the right of Lucic's right leg and therefore went wide of the right goal post by at least one to one-and-a-half feet.

    For the puck to have gone through the net, it would have to have gone between the legs of Lucic, which it did not. A frame by frame slo mo will show that it went wide to the right of Lucic.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wheatskins. Show Wheatskins's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    As much as I would want it to be true: I have watched the replay again and again. Chara's shot went to the right of Lucic's right leg and therefore went wide of the right goal post by at least one to one-and-a-half feet.

    For the puck to have gone through the net, it would have to have gone between the legs of Lucic, which it did not. A frame by frame slo mo will show that it went wide to the right of Lucic.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bennyramone. Show bennyramone's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    As much as I would want it to be true: I have watched the replay again and again. Chara's shot went to the right of Lucic's right leg and therefore went wide of the right goal post by at least one to one-and-a-half feet. For the puck to have gone through the net, it would have to have gone between the legs of Lucic, which it did not. A frame by frame slo mo will show that it went wide to the right of Lucic.
    Posted by Wheatskins
    I will state my "opinion" again. I am not claiming or saying the puck went through Lucic's legs. I know the puck goes by Lucic's right leg, then disappears for a moment. Then the puck reappears, and can be seen clearly behind Lucic "through" his legs. We do not know what happens to the puck after it goes by Lucic's right skate. Be aware that directly behind Lucic is the right arm, right blocker and goalie stick of Leighton. I know no one wants to hear more from me, but there is a distinctive "click" sound on my audio around the time the puck passes behind Lucic. Deflection off the goalie perhaps?

    Please NESN, save me from digging a deeper hole of embarassment.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dcater. Show dcater's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    I checked the replay, over, and over, and over again, and this is what i came up with: The Bruins choked a 3-0 lead, a 3-0 series lead, and ripped what was left of old-time B's fans hearts right out of their chests. . .The video clearly shows that we as fans were sent into embarrassment to the point where some of us may never follow the team again.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from CarolinaClamMan. Show CarolinaClamMan's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    Don't be embarrassed, Benny.  Really, keep it going.  Perhaps management or the league can get involved in a review.  Some opinion from players on the ice would weigh in too.  Or the Globe could pick it up as a story.  Is there some way to forward this entire thread to Fluto or some other respected reporter/ journalist? 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from bennyramone. Show bennyramone's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal? New photos

    Added some upgraded images with more descriptions if anyone is interested. I put them in my photos. I hope that works, never done this before.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bennyramone. Show bennyramone's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    How many referees on the ice were signaling goal on Kane's winning shot. Zero. There was a referee directly behind the goal, who watched Kane take the shot, had the puck disappear from his view and just stand there making no signal.

    What? Is that possible? Maybe?  Oh well, at least Boynton gets his name on the cup. Always thought he was good teammate (not sharpest tool in the shed), and it was fun watching Lucic use his head to clean his knuckles that one time.

    Speaking of bad goals, seeing Chicago win reminded me of the non-goal that Bill Friday called against Ed Johnston and the Bruins. I think it was a 1-0 game and Friday thought the new cameras that had just been installed was a puck. 

    Congratulations Black Hawks
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from davecarr. Show davecarr's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    Why are you reviving a thread from May regarding a Chara goal to talk about the Stanley Cup winning goal tonight?


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from bennyramone. Show bennyramone's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    Because I received a lot of flack for suggesting a goal was missed by the on-ice officials during the final seconds of game seven. Kane's shot was obviously a goal and actually stuck below the padding. No signal, goal or no goal, was ever given by either referee. They basically reacted to Kane jumping around.  So I was giving myself a little justification. Thanks
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BlueEyedGuy. Show BlueEyedGuy's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    And you'll note that Kane (the shooter) was the ONE GUY on the ice who knew the puck went in--giving some credence to my theory that players' reactions, while not perfect, are usually a pretty damned good indicator as to whether a puck went in or not. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hayley-1999. Show hayley-1999's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    In Response to Re: Phantom Goal?:
    How many referees on the ice were signaling goal on Kane's winning shot. Zero. There was a referee directly behind the goal, who watched Kane take the shot, had the puck disappear from his view and just stand there making no signal. What? Is that possible? Maybe?   Oh well, at least Boynton gets his name on the cup. Always thought he was good teammate (not sharpest tool in the shed), and it was fun watching Lucic use his head to clean his knuckles that one time. Speaking of bad goals, seeing Chicago win reminded me of the non-goal that Bill Friday called against Ed Johnston and the Bruins. I think it was a 1-0 game and Friday thought the new cameras that had just been installed was a puck.  Congratulations Black Hawks
    Posted by bennyramone

    Wow , you must be as old as dirt as am I , to remember that! I also remember the fans in the Garden almost booing the guy out of the building, chanting "Friday is a bum"! He needed a police escort to get him out of the building and got brutally booed every game he officiated at the Garden there after. Tony "O" beat Eddie Johnston and the Bruins 1-0 that night! Cost the Bruins the Eastern Division title that year( though the Bruins won the Cup - 1969-70 ) Thanks for the memory.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    In Response to Re: Phantom Goal?:
    Because I received a lot of flack for suggesting a goal was missed by the on-ice officials during the final seconds of game seven. Kane's shot was obviously a goal and actually stuck below the padding. No signal, goal or no goal, was ever given by either referee. They basically reacted to Kane jumping around.  So I was giving myself a little justification. Thanks
    Posted by bennyramone


    You're giving yourself justification? I'm amazed that there isn't a stampede of posters lining up to congratulate you as to how your theory was proven correct. After all, the Kane goal and the Chara non-goal are the exact same thing, and are infinitely comparable.

    As to the main point that on-ice officials sometimes get it wrong, I'm sure I speak for the group when I say thank you for clearing that one up for us!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bennyramone. Show bennyramone's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    I'm sure the guy with a Habs image (please don't quiz me on who it is) speaks for the Bruins Discussion group members. Thank you for blessing me with reading my posts. Now please go see how you can help the Canadiens sign someone from Chicago to help them win the cup. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bennyramone. Show bennyramone's posts

    Re: Phantom Goal?

    Wow, you are as relentless as I am. Chara "the shooter" was about thirty-five feet away with four players between him and the goal. Please don't bother reading this post anymore. 
     

Share